Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by the Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Founded in 1999.

Well, he actually (probably) had it won already. Or I should say his group of generals with pinoneeeing vision of mechanized warfare had it won with their brilliant flanking movement through the Ardennes forest in 1940. Guderian, Manstein, Rommel and others had trapped a huge Allied army on the coast and only had to size the ports. Contrary to what most think the allied defenses of Dunkirk were in disarray and they could not have stopped the German Wermacht at that time.

It should have been a great victory ranking along with Canne or say Gaugamela, ending either with a negotiated peace or victory or great weakening of the British position. Instead Hitler threw the opportunity away at the urging of pompous Goring and dinosaur like Rundsted.

So, if I wanted Germany to win I would have told Hitler's to push on at all costs at Dunkirk. I would then have shot Hitler and installed myself as Fuhrer stopping any Genocides and securing Europe as a bastion of Western Civilization for many years.

I gather there was a view in -pre Munich - Europe that a remilitarised Germany could act as a bulwark against Stalinist expansionism in Europe. German rearmament from the late 1920s/early 1930s planned for a pan European economic block on which to base a total war capability. Of course this is difficult to envision given Hitler Germany , but the breath taking pace at which Reich-bank president Hjalmar Schacht dragged German out of the depression , had many in Europe hopping he could do the same for them .

With out Hitler- German rearmament could have continued unchecked through 1930s into 1940s, provided German armaments were sold through out this economic block to thread all these countries into a common anti Stalinist alliance. I gather Soviet war-games of the time just assumed Germany would lead a pan European invasion of Russia. There must have been some truth to this.

First of all, I will retreat from the Frence in early 1944, and transfer the power to French adminstration. As well as Netherland, Beligium, As a result, Allied need to deal with these countries, and Germamy have more source to protect their motherland.

In my view the history records are distorted as favourable to the western allies who won the war, e.g. treating hitler as a madman, and the germans making people suffer whilst the russians not.

If I went back in time to help hitler, I think the key is to remove England as a fighting force. England clearly was never going to agree to peace terms so this meant invasion. Now remember the english channel is not a large sea, its actually more like a large lake, you can even see france from england. The royal navy did not have its force sitting idle in the english channel waiting to block an invasion, they would need to be mobilised in reaction to a sea crossing. As proven by the japanese they were capable of matching up to the royal navy by sinking destroyers in the pacific with their air power. They had a decent amount of carriers and other ships. So I speculate England could have been beaten in one of these ways.

1 - Keep attacking the airforce infrastructure, dont target cities.
2 - Move the start of the invasion fleet to the English coast during night time.

Now at the very least I think they could have made a beach head, and kept the royal air force busy. The issue is then would they be able to ship supplies and extra forces after the initial crossing, as by then the royal navy would be mobilising to defend the country and the airforce may prioritise fighting the invasion forces rather than the luftwaffe.

So either.

1 - Speed is the essence, ship as much across the channel as quick as possible before the royal navy has too much of a sea block in place to prevent further crossings.
2 - Use the japanese navy to assist in the invasion which I think was more then capable of holding its own against the royal navy.

Stukas should also be in this case dive bombing english ships which would cause chaos and not give the english a free reign in the english channel.

With england neutralised, america would have a much harder time taking part, as no longer is england available as a take off point for bombers as well as fighters to assist in an invasion of europe, instead they would need to invade from another part of europe.

In regards to the eastern front it seems clear to me stalin was preparing to invade germany, hence the large amounts of losses early on as had heavy amounts of forces building up to prepare for it, but since they were not fully mobilised and still getting things in place they were caught off guard and why they lost so much ground and men early on in 1941, for this reason if germany delayed or even didnt attack russia at all then they would have likely been defending an invasion instead. So I consider russia the harder part of winning the war, they would be able to dedicate more forces which would help, but if they were on the defensive first then it becomes very diffilcult. This to me also explains why germany seemed to very suddenly stop bombing england and shift its focus to the east, he was likely warned russia was preparing to invade. This is backed up by some recent russian evidence.

Here lies in the problem, I think america would fight forever to preserve capitalism in europe, to them either a german victory or complete russian dominance would be bad so they would intervene somehow to get the english back in play. So I think germany would still have 2 fronts, but the fronts may have been more favourable, I think it would have took longer for the western front to be established without england as a staging area, and it may have been possible to eliminate the russian front by the time that happened. However I think it still would have been very tough as germany would still have its fuel problems and logistics problems.

Travel to May 1939. With all the knowledge we have form sites like this, books we've read, facts we could give right up to how the war ends we'd be beleived. Explain how the war, if started, could not be won. America would not stay out. Developing the B-36 and the atom bomb would allow Germany to be destroyed even if they occupied England.

Concentrate on one enemy at a time. (Assuming everything happens the same up to Dunkirk)
Ist The West in 40-41: France and GB. 1. Continue the brilliant breakthrough at the Ardennes and finish the envelope at Dunkirk. 2. Use the same reliable torpedo mechanisms that blew huge holes in ships in ww1, do you really need magnetic torpedoes that snaps a keel like a dry spaghetti? 3. Go after GB in the med and North Africa after taking Malta, yes to the extent logistics allow. 4. Fight a smart air war against GB, stay away from cities and do everything possible to attrition air forces favorably (like fighting over friendly or neutral areas when possible). 5. PROTECT your CODES. 6. PROTECT your CODES 7. PRO..ahh you get it. 8. Let your generals run the actual campaigns. 9. Start counterfeiting British money in '39 and send it to Happy Pub goers in suitcases by the millions of pounds (I read an article that that was actually done late in the war and it is one of the reasons GB was in such dire financial straights by 45. if started earlier then who knows?).

2nd USSR
1. Do everything possible to protect the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So not invade!!! 2. Build miles and miles of defenses. If war comes let them wear their inexperienced armies out on the static defenses then launch a mobile counterattack in E. Germany/Poland that will make the encirclement at Kiev look like a mouse caught in a trap. 3. Then drive straight for the Ukraine to liberate the population, use captured Soviet arms to equip them. Then winter in friendly territory and resume the attack in the spring. 4. Treat all captured political commissars and officers like royalty. Then release the ones who desire it with the promise to repeat the treatment the next time they are captured. Don't worry Stalin will have them all shot but the word will spread that surrender is preferable.

3rd USA
1. Avoid at all costs a DOW! 2. Send money to US politicians. 2. Japan is a nice ally, they made good cameras and torpedos. However they are on the opposite side of the world and can't really help. When Japan attacks the USA wage a propaganda campaign on the Allies and keep sending the politicians money. Meanwhile keep pounding on GB.

In all possibilities I think Hitler as a military commander is, after cancelling out his strengths, a huge liability. He should be removed from military command preferably be made a "figurehead" with the General staff making the decisions.

A defeated Britain means Hitler could focus all his resources on crushing Russia. The US doesn’t enter the war in Europe. Without US supplies and without Britain fighting, Moscow falls before winter in 1941.

Higham wrote:Given that we all agree none of us actually want to help Hitler.....

1. Defeat Britain. And only then turn on Russia.

A defeated Britain means Hitler could focus all his resources on crushing Russia. The US doesn’t enter the war in Europe. Without US supplies and without Britain fighting, Moscow falls before winter in 1941.

Defeat Britain by not changing tactics and stick to the plan of destroying the RAF, not London! Start the invasion while still battling in the sky. The RAF can't be in two places at the same time.
It would be a costly affair but it might win you the southern part of England. And if so, would the British then bomb their own towns?
Convince the Irish to break neutrality by arming them could indirectly win you the northern part of Ireland and its industry too.
w

Higham wrote:Given that we all agree none of us actually want to help Hitler.....

1. Defeat Britain. And only then turn on Russia.

A defeated Britain means Hitler could focus all his resources on crushing Russia. The US doesn’t enter the war in Europe. Without US supplies and without Britain fighting, Moscow falls before winter in 1941.

US supplies and British fighting had no influence on the outcome of the war in the east in 1941.

There were more British supplies than US supplies arriving in the east in 1941.

There is no proof that the fall of Moscow in 1941 before the winter would result in the defeat of the SU .

Waleed Y. Majeed wrote:Defeat Britain by not changing tactics and stick to the plan of destroying the RAF, not London! Start the invasion while still battling in the sky. The RAF can't be in two places at the same time.
It would be a costly affair but it might win you the southern part of England. And if so, would the British then bomb their own towns?
Convince the Irish to break neutrality by arming them could indirectly win you the northern part of Ireland and its industry too.
w

When the attaxks on London started, there was no longer a possibility to start Sealion .

Higham wrote:Given that we all agree none of us actually want to help Hitler.....

1. Defeat Britain. And only then turn on Russia.

A defeated Britain means Hitler could focus all his resources on crushing Russia. The US doesn’t enter the war in Europe. Without US supplies and without Britain fighting, Moscow falls before winter in 1941.

US supplies and British fighting had no influence on the outcome of the war in the east in 1941.

There were more British supplies than US supplies arriving in the east in 1941.

There is no proof that the fall of Moscow in 1941 before the winter would result in the defeat of the SU .

Unfortunately, you are missing the point of this thread. There is no proof of anything. That’s the problem with this theorising.

But in 1941, the Russians were being crushed by the Nazis. It’s only later, when US supplies are arriving en masse, that Russia is able to benefit. So, yes, I get your point. I didn’t phrase that sentence well.

And yes, given the theorising, Moscow would have probably fallen in 1941. German troops were already ivo Moscow at that point. If Britain had been subdued, Germany would have had more resources to project their power deeper into Russia.

Battle of Britain was the turning point. Stalingrad, for all its ferocity, changed nothing.

BoB was maybe the beginning of the change and was a ray of hope, but the first major change was the 1941 failure of the Wehrmacht to reach Moscow and the Red Army drove them back. That was the first time the Wehrmacht was defeated and America entered the war. Stalingrad was critical because it showed the RED ARMY could eventually win if they were willing to suffer enough causalities....the race was on.